Food For Thought - (But Not For Long?)

I have been spending a little time recently, in one of Hong Kong's "rival" cities, to where a number of people I know have de-camped from Asia's "World City". Why the move? They cite the usual reasons like pollution in Hong Kong, lifestyle, better for the children where they are moving to - while Hong Kong Government statisticians continue to tell us that the inflow into Hong Kong of new companies has never been higher. Amazing what you can do with numbers and statistics - just another type of labeling I guess, but we will get onto that in a minute.

The city I talk of is, of course, Singapore. The original "nanny state" of Asia where citizens (and occasionally visitors) have been instructed in how long their hair should be, how to be polite, what type of person they should marry, what they should not drink or chew as children, and so on. But guess what; it doesn't seem to have done Singapore any harm, and they have achieved certain standards of behaviour, politeness and cleanliness, making it a really pleasant city. And much less talk of "nannying" these days it seems, as that mantle passes to Hong Kong. As if by confirmation, a note in a recently researched web-site states "...Attempts to introduce new taxes, labor regulations (like a minimum wage), the emergence of bodies with arbitrary power of prosecution, corporate welfare and nanny-state legislation are on the rise."

I tend to agree; but the "nannying" goes much further than just in relation to business!

As we try to remain healthy in the face of breathing the foul air in Hong Kong, by at least eating the right sort of foods, up pops the Government with its latest craze. Food labeling.

Don't get me wrong, I am completely in favour of food labeling. We have a right to know what we are eating - and some of the proposed legislation in Hong Kong is helpful, even if it does try to second guess the quality of labeling of the producing country.

If the new rules currently under discussion are passed into legislation, as seems likely at present, all imported packaged foods must bear Hong Kong-specific nutrition labels. That's okay, and easy for the high volume imports, as they can adapt their labeling to suit. But lower volume imports, such as your specialist foods, health foods, the sort of things you like to see daily on your breakfast table, for example are at risk.

Now, while the authorities have accepted the argument that many packaged foods entering Hong Kong are low volume, (defined as less than 30,000 pieces annually), they have exempted these products from the specific labeling - BUT, and here's the rub - woe betide any importer who, wishing to make use of the exemption, finds that in addition to the nutritional values given on the packaging, also finds the packaging contains nutritional claims. You know the sort of thing; "Fat Free", "Sugar Free", "Gluten Free" "Omega 3s". Oh no! Nutritional claims are NOT allowed and therefore the products are NOT exempt.

Well, of course, we do want to be sure that these nutritional claims are genuine - and well, why should we just take the word of another jurisdiction that permits such labeling 'cos "nanny" assumes they must have got it wrong.

Oh, but did I mention that Hong Kong already has a labeling law in place today, which mandates no less, that any representation made on food packaging must be true? Hmm; so actually we are covered already from false claims?

I love Hong Kong. I enjoy living here as does my family, but we are about to lose many of the things that we enjoy having on our shelves. Those foods that elsewhere in the world are deemed to be healthy but which "nanny" says I now can't have.

Time was, in Hong Kong, when people were able to make choices for themselves.

No longer it seems, so perhaps we are really heading to the point so neatly portrayed on our friend Alfred E Neuman's "Mad: magazine for this month where in bold letters, at the bottom right hand corner, are imprinted the words "Viva La Stupidity".

Comments

[Anon]

Hello Gweipo

Seems a lot of normal thinking adults have been fooled by nutritional claims on junk food - maybe thats why the world (not just the USA) has the obesity and other nutritional/health problems it has. The law might indeed be geared to those traveling on the KCR or Citybuses, I believe they are in the (substantial and normal) majority here...

[gweipo]

I'd agree on the comment about 'in Defence of Food', but then again, on the other hand, what normal thinking adult is really going to be fooled by the nutritional claims on a package of say crisps or breakfast cereal? Although perhaps the law is geared towards the people who have to sit in the city buses every morning or the KCR listening to and watching the most spurious and dubious claims from slimming clinics and orthopaedic 'doctors' ... maybe the government needs to change their focus a little ...

[David Eldon]

The point is well made, and one with which I agree, but I would also suggest that the existing laws - and this is the point - in Hong Kong are already capable of dealing with false claims, if the Government chooses to use them.

[Anon]

I'd advise reading "in Defence of Food" by Michael Pollan. Most of the foodstuffs in question wouldn't be recognised as food by your grandmother. Whilst the food labeling laws may be flawed, severe restrictions should be required for those foods making the greatest claims to be "healthy." This might just stop the obscene sight of highly processed white bread, stripped of anything natural, but with "added Omega-3 oil" being described as "good for your heart"

[Tik]

Dear Mr Eldon,

I share the same concern with you that under the proposed nutrition labelling laws in Hong Kong, many foods that are currently available, especially healthy foods, will disappear from the market.

As you mentioned, those products which claim to be “Fat Free” or “Sugar Free” will not be exempt from the labelling laws even if they sell less than 30,000 units a year, and will very likely be gone.

What is even worse is that products with nutrition claims, such as “Zero trans-fat” or “Omega 3, will be outlawed and banned from sale in Hong Kong. These claims, however, are permitted in other countries and can help consumers make healthy food choices.

Ironically, those food products that carry no nutrition claims but contain a high level of fat, sugar or trans-fat etc can enjoy the small volume exemption, while healthier food products cannot be exempt simply because of their claims. It seems that manufacturers are getting punished for producing healthier foods.

In fact, many of us who are worried about the likely disappearance of healthy foods are now circulating by email a petition against the proposed labelling laws. The petition will be sent to the Chief Executive, Chief Secretary, Secretary for Food and Health, and the Legislative Council.

It is high time for the Hong Kong Government to give another thought to the nutrition labelling laws.